:01:25. > :01:35.Coming up in Yorkshire: white conservative MPs are leading the
:01:35. > :01:35.
:01:35. > :42:00.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2424 seconds
:42:00. > :42:04.attack on gay marriage, ahead of a Hello, you are watching the Sunday
:42:04. > :42:08.politics for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Coming up today, why
:42:08. > :42:14.Tory MPs from are part of the world are leading the attack on gay
:42:14. > :42:20.marriage ahead of the Commons vote. An SOS from flood hit homeowners
:42:20. > :42:25.who say they cannot afford to insure their properties.
:42:25. > :42:30.Our guests today are Martin Vickers, the Conservative MP for Cleethorpes
:42:30. > :42:36.and Diana Johnson, Labour MP for Hull North. Hello to your bed. On
:42:36. > :42:40.Tuesday we have the crucial vote on same-sex marriage. Let me get your
:42:40. > :42:44.thoughts. Diana Johnson? I will be supporting the Bill that is coming
:42:44. > :42:48.before Parliament. I am very disappointed about the quadruple
:42:48. > :42:55.log on the Church of England ever being allowed to do this but I am
:42:55. > :42:59.broadly supportive of the evil.. Martin Vickers? I shall be opposing
:42:59. > :43:04.the proposals. It was in no party's manifesto and I don't think we have
:43:04. > :43:08.a mandate for it. It is difficult to judge whether there is a
:43:08. > :43:12.majority, certainly among the younger people they are a lot more
:43:12. > :43:16.relaxed about it but certainly the over-fifties feel very
:43:16. > :43:21.uncomfortable with it and I don't think we should rail roads such
:43:21. > :43:26.social change through without a mandate. The it is estimated that
:43:26. > :43:36.only around one third of MPs will support the government's proposals
:43:36. > :43:41.
:43:42. > :43:44.on Tuesday. Bunch of the Tory opposition comes from Yorkshire and
:43:44. > :43:48.Lincolnshire. Sharing memories are these women
:43:48. > :43:53.who live with their respective partners in civil partnerships.
:43:53. > :43:58.They hope the law will soon allow them to marry their other half's.
:43:58. > :44:04.am very keen on equality for everybody no matter what their race
:44:04. > :44:09.or their sex, no matter what their sexuality. For a section of society,
:44:09. > :44:13.probably getting on for 10% of society, being denied the right to
:44:13. > :44:21.get married, something that heterosexual people have taken for
:44:21. > :44:26.granted for hundreds of years. For me, that is a question of equality.
:44:26. > :44:30.I really feel that we need equal marriage. At the moment, although I
:44:30. > :44:35.am very happy being in a civil partnership with my partner, it is
:44:35. > :44:40.not an equal. I don't think it is viewed by the general population as
:44:40. > :44:43.being equal. You say you are married and people have certain
:44:43. > :44:48.viewpoints on marriage already where as there is not the
:44:48. > :44:52.historical significance attached to civil partnership that there is to
:44:52. > :44:55.marriage. More than 100 Conservative MPs are expected to
:44:55. > :45:01.oppose the Government's proposals when same-sex marriage is debated
:45:01. > :45:05.in the Commons on Tuesday. It includes many Tories from Yorkshire
:45:05. > :45:08.and Lincolnshire. I think it's as regards to discrimination against
:45:08. > :45:14.same-sex couples we are in a very good place with civil partnerships
:45:14. > :45:16.but for those like me who feel very strongly, and I have had over 300
:45:16. > :45:22.letters and e-mails from constituents, and I am sure there
:45:22. > :45:25.are many more who are too shy to write in, they feel that their
:45:25. > :45:30.religious beliefs are being discriminated against in this
:45:30. > :45:35.regard and that is why I believe that we need to have a pause for
:45:35. > :45:39.thought and a longer debate about this. The Church of England will be
:45:39. > :45:43.banned from carrying out same-sex weddings. The ministers say other
:45:43. > :45:49.religious institutions will not be forced into conducting weddings for
:45:49. > :45:52.gay couples but opponents of the Bill are seeking assurances from
:45:52. > :45:57.the government are people know continue to believe in it the
:45:57. > :46:01.traditional definition of marriage should not be penalised for their
:46:01. > :46:05.views. Conservative Edward Leigh wants to amend the a quality act to
:46:05. > :46:11.protect professions such as teaching. Teachers should not be
:46:11. > :46:16.payable -- fearful that they have to say that marriage is about the
:46:16. > :46:22.coming together of Jim and Jonah, but just equally as valid and just
:46:22. > :46:27.as good is a marriage about Jim and gym. Why should teachers who have
:46:27. > :46:32.strongly held and traditional and sensible views, why should they be
:46:32. > :46:37.victimised for expressing those used in their workplace? Despite
:46:37. > :46:41.opposition from some, MPs looks certain to support same-sex
:46:42. > :46:47.marriage, changing forever the way this ancient institution is
:46:47. > :46:51.recognised by law. Diana Johnson, let me pick up on
:46:51. > :46:54.the point made by Edward Leigh, is there a danger that teachers could
:46:54. > :46:59.ultimately lose their jobs if they refuse to support same-sex
:46:59. > :47:05.marriage? I don't think that is the case at all. I was thinking about
:47:05. > :47:09.the issue of abortion, that the laws on abortion a very clear. The
:47:09. > :47:13.Catholic Church has very clear views about abortions and
:47:13. > :47:17.terminations and as long as the Catholic School keep its -- teach
:47:17. > :47:20.us about the law in the land they are perfectly able to talk about
:47:21. > :47:25.the fate's approach to termination. I think this is the same thing,
:47:25. > :47:29.they will have to talk about marriage and if this Bill goes
:47:29. > :47:32.through there will be same-sex marriage but if the Catholic Church
:47:32. > :47:36.has a particular view there is no reason for them to stop teaching
:47:36. > :47:39.what they believe him. If could this be the case? Could people be
:47:39. > :47:45.forced to accepting used against their own conscience? If we look
:47:45. > :47:50.back over a number of cases in recent years, whereby those holding
:47:50. > :47:53.religious views have actually been, what I would regard as
:47:53. > :47:59.discriminated against, I don't have the confidence in the
:47:59. > :48:03.interpretation of the courts of what Parliament may lay down.
:48:03. > :48:06.then we need to be clear, this is only allowing the churches that
:48:06. > :48:10.wanted to conduct same-sex marriages. It does not force anyone
:48:10. > :48:14.to do something they do not wish to do. It is not forcing them, that is
:48:14. > :48:17.the intention, but all these things tend to have unintended
:48:17. > :48:22.consequences and there will be immediate legal challenges which
:48:22. > :48:25.could drag on for years and I am fearful that however fearful --
:48:25. > :48:30.however hard the government they try to tie it down that it would
:48:30. > :48:34.eventually come unstuck. The Human Rights Act seems to override much
:48:34. > :48:38.of our own legislation, doesn't it? I don't accept that. I do think
:48:38. > :48:42.that when several partnerships were introduced there was a great row
:48:42. > :48:44.about what it would mean an it would be the end of marriage and
:48:44. > :48:49.has worked really well and those people now accept civil
:48:49. > :48:51.partnerships are a very good idea. I think if people are in loving
:48:52. > :48:56.relationships and they want to get married then I think they should be
:48:56. > :49:00.allowed to do so. Martin made a point about the younger generation,
:49:00. > :49:04.they support this. I think there are perhaps some younger --
:49:04. > :49:07.cultural issues with the older generation that young people think
:49:07. > :49:10.if you wind a loving relationship and you want to get married them
:49:10. > :49:13.what is the problem? No one is forcing anyone to do this? Is there
:49:13. > :49:18.a danger that many in your party will look out of step with public
:49:19. > :49:23.opinion? We should then categorise this in party-political terms. It
:49:23. > :49:26.is the case that many Tories will vote against it but in terms of
:49:26. > :49:31.public opinion, it is very different. I go out on the streets
:49:31. > :49:35.of Cleethorpes I guess you would find exactly similar views
:49:35. > :49:40.irrespective of people's voting habits. I don't think this is
:49:40. > :49:46.anything to do with party politics, I wasn't implying that at all.
:49:46. > :49:52.agree. There is a perception in the way that some reports have come
:49:52. > :49:55.over in saying that the Tories are backwoodsmen but not the other
:49:55. > :49:59.parties. They think it is a problem in your party in that David Cameron
:49:59. > :50:04.was trying to show it as the modern face and some of the views that are
:50:04. > :50:08.being put forward are far from modern and family orientated. How
:50:08. > :50:13.damaging could this be, do you believe, for the Conservatives?
:50:13. > :50:17.is difficult to judge. For some people it will be a sort of deal
:50:17. > :50:20.breaker, some people have said to be this is the last straw and I
:50:20. > :50:25.will never vote Conservative again but we all know we have heard that
:50:25. > :50:30.before on other issues. For some it will be and I accept that, they
:50:30. > :50:34.feel very deeply about it and I feel very sad that we have -- we
:50:34. > :50:39.might be in danger of railroading it through. Diana makes a valid
:50:39. > :50:44.point about the younger generation. If we had allowed this to evolve
:50:44. > :50:49.over another 10 years then I suspect it may well have moved from
:50:49. > :50:52.civil partnerships to gay marriage without too much fuss but at the
:50:52. > :50:56.moment there are a lot of people who feel very strongly and their
:50:56. > :51:00.views should be respected. But no one is forcing anybody to do
:51:00. > :51:06.anything here, that is the point, it it is about the alarming those
:51:06. > :51:09.who wish to marry, it is not about forcing people to have same-sex
:51:10. > :51:13.marriages. Isn't this all about priorities? Many people ask why it
:51:13. > :51:18.when the economy is in the state it is that you are spending time in
:51:18. > :51:20.Parliament looking at this? I am a supporter of this Bill but you
:51:20. > :51:24.asked a very important question because at the moment I think the
:51:24. > :51:27.government are in difficulty in terms of the legislation they are
:51:27. > :51:31.bringing forward. At a time when we should concentrate at getting
:51:31. > :51:35.growth into the economy and getting jobs into areas like Hull, there is
:51:35. > :51:38.no legislation to do that. We are dealing with these issues and I
:51:38. > :51:42.think it is a good and important issue but the government should
:51:42. > :51:46.have a packed legislative programme and they do not have that. They are
:51:46. > :51:50.finding bits and pieces to sell our days at Westminster. For do you
:51:50. > :51:55.accept you will not win this mode? Are I rather suspect it will pass,
:51:55. > :52:04.which I think is regrettable. It should be in the manifesto and
:52:04. > :52:07.discussed at a later date. Let us move on now.
:52:07. > :52:09.The next time you renew your home insurance, spare a thought for
:52:09. > :52:13.those living in flood-hit areas. One North Yorkshire homeowner has
:52:13. > :52:16.told the Sunday Politics she needs to pay an excess of �20,000 if she
:52:16. > :52:19.makes a claim. Pressure is growing on the government to strike a new
:52:19. > :52:20.deal with the insurance companies to ensure that affordable cover is
:52:20. > :52:24.available for householders. Nick Morris reports.
:52:24. > :52:29.It took the ceiling and most of the boards down here and the last time
:52:29. > :52:33.it came in, the third time, the water market over there. After this
:52:33. > :52:38.home was flooded three times in three months last year, she began
:52:38. > :52:43.to consider moving away. After receiving her renewal offer for
:52:43. > :52:48.flood insurance she realised she was stuck, quite literally in the
:52:48. > :52:51.mud. They offer a dust terms that were reasonable but they wanted an
:52:51. > :52:55.excess of �20,000. It means you cannot sell the property because
:52:55. > :53:00.you cannot get a mortgage without be able to get insurance and there
:53:00. > :53:03.is no way that any company in their right mind will insure it. In 2008
:53:03. > :53:08.Insurers and the government agreed that cover would be available for
:53:08. > :53:14.nearly all flood risk areas, but this agreement does not control the
:53:14. > :53:19.size of the excess they can demand. Five years on, with this agreement
:53:19. > :53:22.known as the state of principles, set up to expire in June, the
:53:22. > :53:26.future for Maria and thousands like her is even less certain.
:53:26. > :53:31.This new agreement must be much more extensive. In the future
:53:31. > :53:36.people with homes in a flood risk areas must have all the homes
:53:36. > :53:39.guaranteed cover. The excesses that people pay out when they suffer
:53:39. > :53:43.flooding cannot be too high, but the third and most important factor
:53:43. > :53:47.is that the Government must underwrite any losses that
:53:47. > :53:52.insurance companies make going forward with this game. That
:53:52. > :53:57.appears to be the big stumbling block. They have been talking about
:53:57. > :54:00.it for two years. In Hull this firm of solicitors said that complaints
:54:00. > :54:05.it receives over insurance companies about flooding are rising
:54:05. > :54:10.fast. They are finding -- finding - - if a finding reliable and
:54:10. > :54:14.affordable cover is difficult now it may soon become impossible.
:54:14. > :54:17.my concerns are going to be are that if a householder takes out a
:54:18. > :54:22.policy of insurance that is covered by the new increment, whether the
:54:22. > :54:28.policy will actually find out, or whether or as we have found, the
:54:28. > :54:32.insurance will find ways to deflect the responsibility. The industry
:54:32. > :54:36.insists it is not the villain of the peace. The Government, we
:54:36. > :54:39.believe, needs to look further ahead and long term and make sure
:54:39. > :54:45.the right investment in the right places takes place to combat the
:54:45. > :54:49.effects of climate change. So, who is to blame for leaving
:54:49. > :54:52.householders in flood risk areas high but not so dry? From the
:54:52. > :54:56.insurers there was a great deal of frustration about the inability of
:54:56. > :55:00.the Government to reach a deal on this issue. Any deal will whizz it
:55:00. > :55:04.-- any deal will require legislation so will be a very tight
:55:04. > :55:09.timetable now, whatever happens. The flood Minister was in Yorkshire
:55:09. > :55:15.this week to look at flat defences. He did not have time to speak to us
:55:15. > :55:20.but he sent us this statement... Discussions about what will replace
:55:20. > :55:24.the state of principles are ongoing. We want a lasting solution that
:55:24. > :55:30.secures the availability of flood insurance for the first time with -
:55:30. > :55:35.- without placing unsustainable costs on wider policy holders or
:55:35. > :55:39.taxpayers. Our region has just marked the anniversary of the great
:55:39. > :55:43.flood of 1953 that devastated parts of the east coast. 60 years on
:55:43. > :55:48.homeowners will be hoping that a new insurance deal services before
:55:48. > :55:51.the waters rise again. Clearly many homeowners are worried
:55:51. > :55:56.right now because when will we finally see this deal between the
:55:56. > :56:00.government and the insurance companies? I have been pressing the
:56:00. > :56:03.Minister on this with a number of questions in the parliament. As
:56:03. > :56:07.well as being in Yorkshire yesterday he was also in my
:56:07. > :56:12.constituency and I had discussions only yesterday about it. He does
:56:12. > :56:15.assure me that the negotiations are going along well and we will have
:56:16. > :56:20.an announcement soon. It is a major worry for many of my constituents
:56:20. > :56:23.and I very much hope we will reach a conclusion fairly soon.
:56:23. > :56:28.Government says it is spending extra money on flood defences, what
:56:28. > :56:33.more could it do? There has been about a 27% cut in the money it has
:56:33. > :56:36.been spending on flood defences and that is one issue. What is making
:56:36. > :56:40.me very cross is the deadline for the statement of principles ending
:56:40. > :56:44.has been known for some time and in the summer of last year I asked the
:56:44. > :56:48.Secretary state was an agreement close and I was told yes. It was
:56:48. > :56:51.going to be announced shortly and it was all going to be fine and we
:56:51. > :56:56.are now in February and still no announcement. People already
:56:56. > :56:58.reviewing their house insurance for the next 12 months and that a
:56:59. > :57:03.uncertainty is causing real problems in an area like Hull which
:57:03. > :57:08.at the dreadful floods in 2007. The Government really need to get a
:57:08. > :57:11.move on. They are being very complacent about this. They need to
:57:11. > :57:15.actually come to a conclusion and see what the new agreement is.
:57:15. > :57:18.Something is not quite right in these negotiations. The insurance
:57:18. > :57:22.industry does not seem to be willing to play ball. When are we
:57:22. > :57:26.going to get some news that will help these hard-pressed homeowners?
:57:26. > :57:30.I think both sides are playing their cards close to their chests
:57:30. > :57:34.which is understandable in a period of negotiation. I agree with Diana,
:57:34. > :57:40.people are uncertain and we wanted our -- we want an answer as quickly
:57:40. > :57:43.as possible. I and a day and and others will continue to press the
:57:43. > :57:47.minister. The government have given an absolute assurance that they
:57:47. > :57:52.will see this through to a satisfactory agreement and we have
:57:52. > :57:54.to hope that that comes pretty quickly. Diana Johnson, the
:57:54. > :57:59.previous statement of principles was agreed in a very different time
:57:59. > :58:02.and very different economic circumstances, will a future Labour
:58:02. > :58:06.government in a position to bankroll the insurance industry if
:58:06. > :58:10.they have to take huge losses from flood claims. Let us be very clear
:58:10. > :58:14.that around the world there are schemes in place to protect areas
:58:14. > :58:19.that flight and that the Government takes a role in insurance --
:58:19. > :58:23.ancient -- ensuring that insurance is available in those areas. While
:58:23. > :58:27.the statement of principles, you are right, was that a certain time,
:58:27. > :58:30.now the problem is that the Treasury are being asked for to
:58:30. > :58:33.underwrite potential losses for a short period for the insurance
:58:33. > :58:37.industry and they are dragging their feet on that. That is where
:58:37. > :58:42.we have got to. It is the Treasury that are saying they are not happy
:58:42. > :58:46.about the deal that seems to have been hammered out. At the end of
:58:46. > :58:49.the day something has to be done. You cannot leave areas of the
:58:49. > :58:54.country without access to house insurance. It would completely
:58:54. > :58:57.blind the market. Should people who do not live in flood risk areas
:58:58. > :59:01.bankroll people who do through higher premiums? The whole
:59:01. > :59:06.principle of insurance is the sharing of risk, isn't it? So we
:59:06. > :59:09.are all doing that any way when we play our premium. But we have to
:59:09. > :59:13.keep the premium at an acceptable and affordable level. That is the
:59:13. > :59:23.key when the announcement comes. Let's get some more of the week's
:59:23. > :59:27.political news now. Len Tingle has our round-up in 60 seconds.
:59:27. > :59:31.No surprise the Prime Minister arrived in Leeds this week with the
:59:31. > :59:35.transport secretary at his side. It was for a specially convened full
:59:35. > :59:39.Cabinet meeting in Leeds to announce the North's first new row
:59:39. > :59:43.wait for 120 years. I think it is one of the best
:59:43. > :59:46.dancers to healing the North-South divide and bringing growth to our
:59:46. > :59:52.great northern cities. New high- speed trains will not be arriving
:59:52. > :59:58.on a platform in Yorkshire until 2033, first there is a year's
:59:58. > :00:01.consultation for those affected by the route like Bryan Mason's Farm
:00:01. > :00:10.Shop. We are absolutely devastated. The map shows that it goes through
:00:10. > :00:16.the business, through the house, through everything. Applause, or
:00:16. > :00:19.was it relief? Government plans to abolish 50 constituencies were
:00:19. > :00:22.thrown out. The Yorkshire Conservative MPs Philip Davies and
:00:22. > :00:27.a David Davies rebels because both would have been severely affected
:00:27. > :00:30.by the change. Where for once, Diana Johnson, you
:00:30. > :00:34.can say something nice about the Liberal Democrats because they have
:00:34. > :00:39.done you a big favour by blocking the boundary changes. I am glad
:00:39. > :00:42.they saw sense in the end because the proposals around boundary
:00:42. > :00:46.changes was ill thought-through and wasted �12 million doing this.
:00:46. > :00:50.Actually it did not take into account, in my constituency for
:00:50. > :00:53.example, all the people the one not in the electoral register. That is
:00:53. > :00:57.where the FA should have been put, to get them all on the electoral
:00:57. > :01:01.register and then equalise the size of constituencies, not this cack-
:01:01. > :01:04.handed way of doing things that was proposed by the coalition. Do you
:01:04. > :01:09.accept it will be virtually impossible for the Conservatives to
:01:09. > :01:13.win the next election with an overall majority? Absolutely not.
:01:13. > :01:18.It will be more difficult. According to the experts to analyse
:01:18. > :01:21.these things, from a selfish point of view, I am very at beef to be
:01:21. > :01:26.fighting the same constituency. I have grown into it, I like it, it
:01:26. > :01:32.is my home territory so I am very happy in that sense but will we
:01:32. > :01:36.win? Who knows? Politics can change very quickly. Why do we need 650
:01:36. > :01:40.MPs in the House of Commons? The House of Representatives and the
:01:40. > :01:44.Senate combined in the USA have fewer members. Yes but you are
:01:44. > :01:48.comparing apples and pears there. In the States there is a federal
:01:48. > :01:51.system. You have States with a very governments and their own
:01:51. > :01:55.parliaments. In this government we have obviously Wales and Scotland
:01:55. > :01:58.having devolved authorities but for the rest of the country it is a
:01:59. > :02:02.council and it is Parliament. We do not have the same level of
:02:02. > :02:07.governments that there are in other countries so why things 650, while
:02:07. > :02:09.we should always keep it under via -- under review, we know the
:02:09. > :02:14.population is growing in this country so we need to take that
:02:14. > :02:19.into account. I want to ask you both about high-speed rail. Neither
:02:19. > :02:25.of you in your constituencies will benefit directly but Martin Vickers,
:02:25. > :02:29.can you justify the cost to your constituents? I favour HS2. As a
:02:29. > :02:33.country we have got to move forward and have a high-speed rail network.
:02:33. > :02:37.It is not quite true to say there is no immediate benefit to this
:02:37. > :02:40.area, it will free up capacity on the East Coast Main Line and
:02:40. > :02:46.hopefully the Government will do everything they can to ensure that
:02:46. > :02:49.British-based companies in our area get the contracts for the
:02:49. > :02:55.construction. Do you think of so many it will benefit the economy in
:02:55. > :03:00.your area? I support HS2, but actually I would like to see high
:03:00. > :03:04.speed trains in my area. We do not even have that too Hull at the
:03:04. > :03:09.moment and the plans to electrify the line stop at Selby so we do not
:03:09. > :03:13.even get too Hull in the plans at the moment, let alone in 2033.
:03:13. > :03:16.that is a point, will be see extra investment in other railings?
:03:16. > :03:20.already are, with the Midland Main Line and the route down to Wales
:03:20. > :03:25.and so on that they are being electrified it almost as we speak.
:03:25. > :03:29.The government have produced a number -- a lot of cash for capital
:03:29. > :03:33.investment in the railways. I agree that I would like to see the line
:03:33. > :03:38.up to Cleethorpes alleged fight but we keep arguing the corn and
:03:38. > :03:43.eventually it will happen. When HS2 is built it will be quicker to get
:03:43. > :03:45.to Sheffield to London and a curry takes to get to Doncaster from
:03:45. > :03:51.Cleethorpes. I can believe that because I had a painful journey
:03:51. > :03:56.from Cleethorpes to Doncaster every week! He is a long-term project and
:03:56. > :03:59.it is really a case of jam tomorrow with HS2. It is a very long-term
:03:59. > :04:04.project and I think we want to see the investment in infrastructure.
:04:04. > :04:07.It will be many years before we see any building work taking place and
:04:07. > :04:12.what we need really is the infrastructure to be built in the
:04:12. > :04:19.next few years. We need, as I have said before, we need investment in
:04:19. > :04:23.roads now. We could spend money now to have great benefit and create
:04:23. > :04:29.jobs. Are we going to see some unhappy MPs on the route? Martin
:04:29. > :04:33.Vickers, compulsory purchase orders, with their constituents? It will be
:04:33. > :04:36.difficult for the constituencies affected, I accept that. I hope we
:04:36. > :04:40.do not rush it through because people have a right to be heard but